Back to Squawk list
  • 34

Boeing to separate 737 MAX wire bundles before jet's return to service

Boeing plans to separate 737 MAX wiring bundles, flagged by regulators as potentially dangerous, before the jet returns to service, two people familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Jim Welch 12
Regardless of the length of time similar bundles have been in service without serious loss of life, it’s now recognized as a “weak link”, & should absolutely be treated as such.
To turn a blind eye to the issue is like saying “I never wore a seatbelt in my life, & I’m fine!”
Sooner or later, EVERYTHING mechanical fails. It’s a fact of life that’s absolute. Disasters are almost always a chain of events, & removing what is now recognized as a weak link shouldn’t even be a topic of discussion.
That no souls have been lost as a result YET, is fortunate.
For those that say “Leave it well enough alone.” are hiding their heads in the sand.
Fix it. Period.
TWA 800 (if you believe the official report). Swissair 111. Google "Kapton insulation" or "Chafing wire bundles". There are scores of reports of fires. Now with FBW you can have crossfeed into critical servos, even with DC eddies if there is different wiring in multiple generators (Boeing took a while to be convinced of that one !)
If I google "Kapton insulation", will I learn how many decades it's been since the stuff was last installed in a commercial airliner?
Hi JMartinson

It was just a series of quick examples that came to mind while I was running a mind-dump response post. I couldn't remember the British a/c that had the DC crossfeed because of different generator wiring either or the 757 events . There are a bundle of reasons why wiring location, proximity and insulation are critical.

With respect, I withdraw the Kapton reference.

> removing what is now recognized as a weak link shouldn’t even be a topic of discussion

What if the process required to remove that "weak link" also presents a certain amount of risk? Shouldn't we compare the risks to see which is less?

Oh, right, of course not. Because Boeing.

Just because the idiot reporters and editors at reuters forgot to mention it (aka do their job) for 16 articles in a row doesn't mean it's not there.
The fact that Boeing spent weeks / months resisting this change suggests that it has learnt very little about the need for a return to a "safety first" approach to aircraft design and construction. After all the focus on the 737 MAX design , it will probably be one of the safest planes to fly in, but it will take many years for the travelling public to trust Boeing to keep it that way.
The existing wiring bundle in the tail of the MAX is unchanged from the 737 NG, and has 216 million hours of safe flying under its belt. Exactly how much reassurance do you need?
mariofer 3
Good Ole Pendulum effect. The same entities that certified the plane with what was obviously serious problems, will now question the safety of the paint color.
I was only commenting on and disagreeing with the oft heard suggestion that all of the scrutiny this plane is getting will imbue it will some amazing level of safety. I argue that a well built 737 can at best match the safety of modern airliners, because no matter what enhancements Boeing makes, it is still fundamentally a 1960s design (e.g., installing an electric motor in a Ford Falcon won't turn it into a Tesla).
By that argument, there should be no DC-3s, DHC Beavers, DHC Twin Otters, Super Cubs, etc. flying around and sought after. Also, comparing the 737-200 to the MAX is like comparing 70's Camry to a 2020 one. The 737 flies on today because it's damn good as its job. Wish I could say the same of some of the carriers flying it. Anyhow, the wiring bundle is fine. The political climate isn't.
No other 747 experienced a centre fuel tank explosion therefore TWA 800 was brought down by a missile not by chafed wires. All the reports of chafed wires causing fires have never been shown to have resulted in a total hull loss therefore we should never try to improve on the past, just keep doing things the same way.
Yes, the other center tank explosions occurred on the ground. Must of have been low flying missiles.
What other center tank explosions?
200+ million hours without an issue. Think about that. How can you be sure you'll improve on that without unintentionally make something worse by messing with the insulation of the bundles? Or let's put it another way. Let's say we found that on 6000+ A320s. Would we ground it and tell Airbus/airlines to fix it immediately? That's absurd. The only reason to touch it is political CYA.
Greg S 1

Sure, like your conspiracy nonsense is somehow the result of irrefutable logic. Was SwissAir 111 also shot down by a missile? No, therefore you're an idiot.
Mr Greg S.

With the deepest respect for the evidence you reference and your reasoning, I respectfully reject your determination that I am an idiot.

So do you also argue that you know more than the airlines? Or do you also argue that the airlines know what you know, but made it the best selling airliner in history anyway.

P.S. Are new Ford Mustangs less safe than Ford Fusions? Mustangs are a 1960's design, are they not?

P.P.S. If they were refurbing 50 year old airframes your electric Falcon bit might make sense. But they aren't and it doesn't. Car comparisons never work, but you started it.
"After all the focus on the 737 MAX design , it will probably be one of the safest planes to fly..."

At its foundation, basic 737 systems are structure are still based on 1960s technology--especially flight controls. It's systems don't have the same level of redundancy as modern airplanes. Its cockpit is designed with 1960s human factors principles.

In my opinion, it's wrong to suggest that this airplane will have some amazing level of safety going forward. At best it will have an equivalent level of safety as the rest of the commercial fleet, which received appropriate scrutiny during their design and certification.
"Its cockpit is designed with 1960s human factors principles." This is to keep the type rating the same. It worked for 50 years, why change it now? Oh, wait....
The idea of the FAA, with the exact same leadership, personnel, equipment, budget, methods, and procedures did a terrible job on one type but has done a great job on all the rest is just too much, even for around here.
clarify 1
I guess I'm surprised to hear that issues such as levels of redundancy and cockpit layout cannot be updated over time. Do you have citations for these claims? I would like to learn more.
Greg S 3
It will take many minutes for the traveling public to trust the MAX, not years.
What a nightmare this plane has become. Just cut your losses Boeing.
It's like it is cursed.
oh sure...and the zombie apocalypse is just around the corner...
Good luck trying to get people to fly on a 737 MAX if and when they fly again
get a life folks. Does anyone in their right mind think Boeing would argue about this issue, in public, just because they're now the designated evil meanies of the aircraft manufacturing world and they want to stick it to the man? There are so many factors involved in all this that 99% of the trolls on here have no clue about what's really important and what's not on a specific problem. For starters, the FAA, and many other authorities and airlines around the world, have egg on their face and are in penalty mode (best defense? a good offense), so they will leave no rock un-turned at this point even if they are ones they have already looked under.

This is all about merit badges at this stage of the game. The key points of this investigation were understood many many months ago and to my knowledge from the outside looking in, appear to have been addressed. But that really doesn't matter at this point as long as the other parties involved continue to sweep their actions under the rug. The FAA will continue to dredge through the certification debris looking for every needle in the haystack. If every aircraft model flying were treated in this same manner, You All would be taking the trains/boats/automobiles because there wouldn't be an aircraft in the air at the moment. This stuff goes on all the time and is rectified without anyone ever hearing about it in most cases.

Shouldn't some of you be off doing your CSI on the corona-cold-virus and toilet paper "shortage" to see what the Chicoms are frantically trying to hide form the rest of the world? That would certainly be of greater value to humankind to get to the bottom of that debacle. Jeez.

Critical thought...R.I.P.
Sign me up! I will gladly be the first to fly on the 737 MAX when it is returned to service. It will be the safest plane on the planet!
I'll only fly on them if the crew are willing to do so and the seats are the same price or less than the competition


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..